49 replies to this topic

[Qi Chin]

Let's add: Adaptation is not evolution. E-coli did not evolve. Bacteria do not evolve antibiotic resistance. Thanks.

 

Actually, adaptation is one of the processes of evolution. The way colonies of bacteria "gain" antibiotic resistance is through natural selection. If some bacteria have this resistance, others are killed off through antibiotics - the resistance trait is selected for. These resistant bacteria then reproduce, making the entire colony more resistant. On a small scale, this is exactly what happens during evolution.

To ask an equal question, however, are there practical applications for creationism?

[MamaElephant]

To ask an equal question, however, are there practical applications for creationism?

 

Good question. Yes. The assumption that parts of our bodies are useless is based on evolutionary reasoning. Doctors have found that after converting to creationism they have made breakthroughs in their research and treatments.

[JoshuaJacob]

Doctors have found that after converting to creationism they have made breakthroughs in their research and treatments.

Did you get this from an article? If so can you post a link.

[MamaElephant]

Did you get this from an article? If so can you post a link.

 

I have read articles either written by scientists who have converted to creationism or the scientists being interviewed quite often for years as I have subscriptions to The Watchtower and Awake magazine and more recently Creation.com.

I will have to take the time to dig up some specific examples.

[jason777]

Actually, adaptation is one of the processes of evolution.

No. It was empirically established by a creationist named Gregor Mendel.

The laws discovered by him were understood to be the laws of constant elements for a great but finite variation, not only for culture varieties but also for species in the wild (Mendel 1866, pp. 36, 46, 47).

The way colonies of bacteria "gain" antibiotic resistance is through natural selection. If some bacteria have this resistance, others are killed off through antibiotics - the resistance trait is selected for. These resistant bacteria then reproduce, making the entire colony more resistant. On a small scale, this is exactly what happens during evolution.

No. Amino acid substitutions (random or not) will never change Plasmodium into anything but Plasmodium. One good thing about these types of adaptations in bacteria is that it gives us billions of generations to observe changes in real time. In all of those billions of generations, chloroquine resistance has only arisen a few times and it only took two amino acid changes. In human terms, it would take more billions of years than OE scientists assume the earth is just to get a double amino acid change to become resistant to antibiotics, not to mention anything genetically novel.

To ask an equal question, however, are there practical applications for creationism?

Almost all sciences were pioneered by creationists. One of my favorite examples is Mendel's falsification of Darwin's idea of the inheritance of acquired characters by his law of heredity.

why was the discovery of the laws of heredity ignored by most scientists for more than 35 years, until 1900, and by the "true Darwinians" (Mayr) for another 37 years? That is 72 years in all!

The reasons have been hinted at or clearly stated by several pioneers of genetics as de Vries (1901), Bateson (1904, 1909, 1924), Johannsen (1909, 1926) as well as several historians of biology and/or biologists as Niessl (1903, 1906), Richter (1941, 1943), Stern (1962), Lönnig (1982, 1986, 1995), Callender (1988) and Bishop (1996):

All the evidence points to the main reason as follows: Mendel's ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers. Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characters (and tried to back up his ideas with his pangenesis hypothesis, which even Stebbins called an "unfortunate anomaly") and, most important of course, continuous evolution. Mendel, in contrast, rejected both, the inheritance of acquired characters as well as evolution. The laws discovered by him were understood to be the laws of constant elements for a great but finite variation, not only for culture varieties but also for species in the wild (Mendel 1866, pp. 36, 46, 47). In his short treatise EXPERIMENTS IN PLANT HYBRIDIZATION mentioned above Mendel incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring", "constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs altogether 67 times in the German original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner's conclusion "that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change". And as Dobzhansky aptly put it: "It is...not a paradox to say that if some one should succeed in inventing a universally applicable, static definition of species, he would cast serious doubts on the validity of the theory of evolution".

http://www.weloennig.de/mendel02.htm



In contrast, evolution has hindered the science of genetics by assuming junk DNA has no purpose. Once scientists give up these baseless assumptions and look at the function; It is found to have one.

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm





Enjoy.

[jason777]

I have read articles either written by scientists who have converted to creationism or the scientists being interviewed quite often for years as I have subscriptions to The Watchtower and Awake magazine and more recently Creation.com.

I will have to take the time to dig up some specific examples.

 

Dean H. Kenyon was the author of Biochemical Predestination. One day a student asked him "How did these proteins assemble themselves without the genetic information to code for them?" Dean was stumped and soon realized that his theory was wrong and that creation was the answer. He has also been a witness in court cases for creation and I.D. and has written books on I.D.

http://creationwiki.org/Dean_Kenyon


Enjoy.

[Qi Chin]

Almost all sciences were pioneered by creationists.

 

That is not a practical application of creationism.

We should continue everything else in the original topic this one was spliced from, as it belongs there.

[MamaElephant]

Ah, but it is... "Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”8

“Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed.”9

And Prof. Snobelen explains the reason why: scientists started to study nature in the same way they studied the Bible.

“It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.”9

Harrison, P., The Bible and the rise of science, Australasian Science 23(3):14–15, 2002.

Snobelen, S., “Isaac Newton and Apocalypse Now: a response to Tom Harpur’s Newton’s strange bedfellows”; A longer version of the letter published in the Toronto Star, 26 February 2004.

[MamaElephant]

I think one of the articles was a Creation.com interview of prenatal medical researcher Dr Larry Thaete.

[Qi Chin]

Ah, but it is... "Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all.

 

That is a consequence of Bible scholars studying the world around them and doing science. What I meant with practical applications are things you can do directly with creationism, sort of like how knowledge of chemistry allows for the production of petrol out of crude oil, or something like that. More "hands-on," in a way.

[MamaElephant]

That is a consequence of Bible scholars studying the world around them and doing science. What I meant with practical applications are things you can do directly with creationism, sort of like how knowledge of chemistry allows for the production of petrol out of crude oil, or something like that. More "hands-on," in a way.

 

Well, if you put it that way... I know of no practical applications that result from The Theory of Evolution. Natural Selection and adaptation are not exclusive to the theory.

My earlier post was about scientists having breakthroughs due to their belief in a designer.

[MamaElephant]

So far we have...

In contrast, evolution has hindered the science of genetics by assuming junk DNA has no purpose. Once scientists give up these baseless assumptions and look at the function; It is found to have one.

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm
Enjoy.

 

I think one of the articles was a Creation.com interview of prenatal medical researcher Dr Larry Thaete.

 

He said that belief in Creation helped him in his research because he didn't assume that parts of the human body or embryonic processes were left over evolutionary junk.

[jason777]

That is not a practical application of creationism.

We should continue everything else in the original topic this one was spliced from, as it belongs there.

 

What about the other part of my post? Mendel predicted that species did not change, he conducted the experiment, and firmly established a scientific law that Darwinists rejected for 35 years.

Here is another one of my favorites:

http://www.evolution...findpost&p=2446

We can only make predictions about certain models, and then, test those predictions. God alone has the power to create, so applying creationism is something that he alone can do. With exception to the Apostles that he empowered.

One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer-at three in the afternoon. 2 Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. 4 Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, "Look at us!" 5 So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them. 6 Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." 7 Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man's feet and ankles became strong. 8 He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God. 9 When all the people saw him walking and praising God, 10 they recognized him as the same man who used to sit begging at the temple gate called Beautiful, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him. Acts 3:1-10




Enjoy.

[jason777]

No, I've read Mendel's paper. He made no statement about species.

In his short treatise EXPERIMENTS IN PLANT HYBRIDIZATION mentioned above Mendel incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring", "constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs altogether 67 times in the German original paper).

Huh?

He said hereditary elements don't change which we know is false.

Which scientific law is that? And why is Mendel's Law of Heredity still a scientific law if it's been proven false?

Once biologists were able to put the two together and get a great understanding of genetics evolution became stronger than it had ever previously been.

Falsifying Darwin to be converted to Neo Darwinism isn't a strength. Especially, since evolution by gene duplication has been falsified as well.


http://www.evolution...indpost&p=66600

[AFJ]

No, I've read Mendel's paper.  He made no statement about species.  He said hereditary elements don't change which we know is false.  It had nothing to do with evolution regarding the rejection of what Mendel said.  The thinking of the time was that offspring were just a blend of their parents. 

Charles Darwin was unaware of Mendel's work and his inability to figure out how traits were passed on bothered him.  In fact, when Darwin published Origin it was rejected. 

Once biologists were able to put the two together and get a great understanding of genetics evolution became stronger than it had ever previously been.

 

I'm not sure if "He said hereditary elements don't change which we know is false..." is a fair statement. He emphasized that the traits seemed to be passed in stable quantities. And that they were controlled by "factors." And that some element was in control of the traits, which was evidenced by the quantitative recurrence of traits.

He came up with these principles which have a useful application: I realize this has no apparant connection (to evos) to the creation story. I think that is personal choice--it certainly does not contradict design and order. Here are his findings:

1.   that the inheritance of each trait is determined by "units" or "factors" that are passed on to descendents unchanged      (these units are now called genes )
2. that an individual inherits one such unit from each parent for each trait
3. that a trait may not show up in an individual but can still be passed on to the next generation.

From these observations he came up with "the principle of segregation, for any particular trait, the pair of alleles of each parent separate and only one allele passes from each parent on to an offspring.  Which allele in a parent's pair of alleles is inherited is a matter of chance.

We now know that this segregation of alleles occurs during the process of s@x cell formation (i.e., meiosis )."
 
And..."the principle of independent assortment, different pairs of alleles are passed to offspring independently of each other.  The result is that new combinations of genes present in neither parent are possible.  For example, a pea plant's inheritance of the ability to produce purple flowers instead of white ones does not make it more likely that it will also inherit the ability to produce yellow pea seeds in contrast to green ones. 

Likewise, the principle of independent assortment explains why the human inheritance of a particular eye color does not increase or decrease the likelihood of having 6 fingers on each hand.  Today, we know this is due to the fact that the genes for independently assorted traits are located on different chromosomes."  http://anthro.paloma...el/mendel_1.htm

So Mendel was researching whether "blending" of parental traits was indeed the case, as opposed to whether populations could have different allele frequencies. He was trying to find the allele (lol)!!! It is therefore unfair to suggest he got a wrong answer, when he, and the rest of humanity was unable to ask the question.

[AFJ]

Creationism implies design. When I was a biology student in high school--way back in the seventies, we studied something completely different than what is emphasized today. We didn't study that much on taxonomic connections, but we studied the study of "life" which is what biology means.

We studied photosythesis, osmosis, ATP, the cell, DNA and chromosomes, the heart, the digestive system, the nervous system. All these things show design. The other night, being so geeky as I am (hey I still work out a little--lol ), I was reading up on the liver. It is nearly impossible to believe it wasn't intelligently designed. The main evidence is how it works with other systems. It works with the circulatory system--it has to have two sets of vessels, one primarily for it's survival, the other to act as a "purifier" for the blood. Even it's blood vessels are specially designed to alllow the blood to completely saturate the liver. It is supported by ligament "planes" which support it from within, and is covered by a sac. This secures it from slipping around.

The liver works with the pancreas, and the ducts which leave the gall bladder are connected to the pancreas and then the stomache. So the liver works with the digestive system, and the endocrine system also.

Of course, it's going to work with the nervous system also. The nerves are going to control the ducts and valves, which release the bile into the stomache.

The liver is shaped differently in different species, but this seems to be purely space related, as it basic functions are the same. This shows the stability and logical design of the liver. It is not an ever changing "glob" of flesh.

That said, the amazing design and mechanics of the body predicts one can logically "work" on it. I find it interesting that MD's seem to be "unattached" from the evolutionary debate. My doctor is a Christian, and my pastor is a retired doctor. I believe part of the reason may have to do with design. That's hard to deny when you study actual life without the evolutionary overgloss.

[Mike Summers]

I don't remember the source but, I heard it said that the human mind body configuration is the most compicated thing in the known universe. When I was in high school what you studied is what we covered. When I got to college is when emphasis on evo was being pushed. I wonder what it is like today in the biology classrooms?

My students who are mostly adults seem to lack critical thinking skills. I notice that about a lot of our evo friends that and how self rightious they are.

I remember one of my brother's text book that the school dropped back in 1965. It had a chapter on clear thinking. The replacement text book I got didn't have that in it.

[AFJ]

I don't remember the source but I heard it said that the human mind body configuration is the most compicated thing in the known universe. When I was in high school what you studied is what we covered. When I got to college is when emphasis on evo was being pushed. I wonder what it is like today in the biology classroomd?

My students who or mostly adults seem to lack critical thinking skills. I notice that about a lot of our evo friends that and how self rightious they are.

I remember one of my brothers text book that the school dropped back in 1965. It had a chapter on clear thinking. The replacement text book I got didn't have that in it.

 

Sorry, Mike. Any of my after HS science knowledge is by independent study. But it has been quite persistent for the last three years. A missionary has to learn the language, but as I began "learning the language," my interest in the subject grew.

But on critical or analytical thinking. Phonics was normal in primary reading--where you break down, or sound out the word in parts. Sight reading seems (my wife is a teacher) to be the philosophy today. She says it isn't as good, because it doesn't give foundational understanding--you need both. Also, let's make sure everyone understands something--so let's bore the smart ones while we are stuck on something. Conformism. When I was a kid, we got divided up into different groups--politically incorrect today.

At any rate, I'm not so sure independent, analytical, or critical thinking are fostered like they were in preceding generations. Perhaps we think we've arrived, so just listen and shut up.